Most Recent Extra Points

Final 2008 FEI Ratings

by Brian Fremeau

The Fremeau Efficiency Index principles and methodology can be found here. Like DVOA, FEI rewards playing well against good teams, win or lose, and punishes losing to poor teams more harshly than it rewards defeating poor teams. Unlike DVOA, it is drive-based, not play-by-play based, and it is specifically engineered to measure the college game.

FEI is the opponent-adjusted value of Game Efficiency, a measurement of the success rate of a team scoring and preventing opponent scoring throughout the non-garbage-time possessions of a game. Like DVOA, it represents a team's efficiency value over average. Strength of Schedule is calculated from a privileged perspective (explained here) and represents the likelihood that an elite team (top 5) would post an undefeated record against the given team's opponents to date.

The following ratings are calculated based on data from all FBS games played through Thursday, January 8. Only games between FBS teams are considered.

Rank

Team

Record

FEI

Last Week

vs. Top 10

vs. Top 40

GE

GE Rank

SOS

SOS Rank

1

Florida

12-1

0.363

1

3-1

6-1

0.422

1

0.091

12

2

USC

12-1

0.287

5

1-0

5-1

0.383

2

0.231

50

3

Oklahoma

11-2

0.279

2

0-2

5-2

0.324

4

0.063

4

4

Texas

12-1

0.276

4

1-0

4-1

0.378

3

0.219

47

5

Penn State

10-2

0.253

3

0-1

2-2

0.304

5

0.216

44

6

North Carolina

7-5

0.229

6

0-1

5-3

0.103

23

0.132

25

7

Mississippi

8-4

0.218

15

1-1

3-2

0.168

15

0.087

11

8

Alabama

12-2

0.216

8

1-1

4-2

0.225

9

0.080

10

9

Virginia Tech

9-4

0.207

9

1-1

4-4

0.075

32

0.104

15

10

Florida State

7-4

0.205

10

1-1

4-4

0.084

28

0.054

2

11

Boston College

8-5

0.184

11

2-2

4-4

0.056

39

0.077

9

12

Utah

12-0

0.182

23

1-0

3-0

0.262

7

0.411

75

Rank

Team

Record

FEI

Last Week

vs. Top 10

vs. Top 40

GE

GE Rank

SOS

SOS Rank

13

Pittsburgh

9-4

0.179

13

0-0

5-3

0.086

26

0.205

40

14

Georgia Tech

7-4

0.172

7

1-2

5-3

0.033

47

0.112

17

15

Wake Forest

8-5

0.171

18

2-0

4-4

0.045

44

0.136

26

16

Texas Tech

9-2

0.169

14

1-2

2-2

0.187

12

0.162

33

17

Iowa

8-4

0.167

17

1-0

1-1

0.187

13

0.318

65

18

Ohio State

9-3

0.166

12

0-3

0-3

0.150

17

0.131

24

19

West Virginia

8-4

0.156

24

1-0

4-3

0.076

31

0.206

41

20

Rutgers

7-5

0.150

21

0-1

4-4

0.105

22

0.188

37

21

Clemson

5-6

0.150

16

0-2

2-4

0.031

48

0.136

27

22

TCU

10-2

0.150

25

0-1

1-2

0.242

8

0.278

61

23

Boise State

11-1

0.143

22

0-0

1-1

0.299

6

0.553

97

24

Georgia

9-3

0.141

26

0-2

1-3

0.060

38

0.101

14

25

Cincinnati

10-3

0.131

20

0-2

4-3

0.068

35

0.128

22

Adjusted Offensive Efficiency and Adjusted Defensive Efficiency are the opponent-adjusted values of Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Efficiency, explained here. Like FEI, the multiple-order adjustments are weighted according to both the strength of the opponent and the relative significance of the result; efficiency against a team's best competition faced is given more relevance weight. AOE and ADE represent a team's value over/under average. Positive AOE and negative ADE are the most valuable.

Rank

Team

Record

AOE

AOE Rank

ADE

ADE Rank

OE

OE Rank

DE

DE Rank

1

Florida

12-1

0.580

2

-0.567

1

0.587

8

-0.587

2

2

USC

12-1

0.470

6

-0.483

5

0.500

11

-0.601

1

3

Oklahoma

11-2

0.581

1

-0.312

24

0.843

3

-0.061

55

4

Texas

12-1

0.521

4

-0.421

9

0.934

1

-0.243

26

5

Penn State

10-2

0.514

5

-0.257

27

0.500

12

-0.389

11

6

North Carolina

7-5

0.214

25

-0.443

7

-0.086

67

-0.285

18

7

Mississippi

8-4

0.339

13

-0.405

11

0.181

31

-0.328

15

8

Alabama

12-2

0.281

18

-0.329

15

0.075

43

-0.483

5

9

Virginia Tech

9-4

0.138

40

-0.406

10

-0.216

88

-0.310

16

10

Florida State

7-4

0.298

15

-0.320

20

0.004

54

-0.189

31

11

Boston College

8-5

0.138

39

-0.547

2

-0.178

79

-0.481

6

12

Utah

12-0

0.194

28

-0.330

14

0.211

27

-0.356

14

Rank

Team

Record

AOE

AOE Rank

ADE

ADE Rank

OE

OE Rank

DE

DE Rank

13

Pittsburgh

9-4

0.234

22

-0.314

23

0.061

46

-0.168

35

14

Georgia Tech

7-4

0.318

14

-0.249

28

0.008

53

-0.125

44

15

Wake Forest

8-5

-0.033

67

-0.511

3

-0.267

99

-0.278

20

16

Texas Tech

9-2

0.524

3

-0.211

32

0.921

2

0.153

83

17

Iowa

8-4

0.143

37

-0.393

12

0.070

44

-0.479

7

18

Ohio State

9-3

0.165

34

-0.322

19

0.031

50

-0.377

13

19

West Virginia

8-4

0.182

32

-0.307

25

-0.082

65

-0.307

17

20

Rutgers

7-5

0.228

23

-0.210

33

0.191

29

-0.165

36

21

Clemson

5-6

0.052

53

-0.491

4

-0.239

94

-0.387

12

22

TCU

10-2

0.093

47

-0.437

8

0.228

26

-0.559

3

23

Boise State

11-1

0.116

44

-0.328

16

0.370

15

-0.536

4

24

Georgia

9-3

0.421

8

-0.088

55

0.191

30

-0.105

47

25

Cincinnati

10-3

0.023

58

-0.315

22

-0.121

72

-0.275

22

The Final FEI Ratings for all 120 FBS teams can be found here. Expanded FEI Ratings data can be found here.

Defense Wins Championships

The BCS Championship game had all the elements of a classic, but none of the polish. Goal-line defensive stands, massive momentum swings, aggressive (sometimes too aggressive) tackling, several superstars with solid performances and several did-you-see-that game-defining plays. Unfortunately, the broadcast team wasn't paying attention, the referee crew was rusty, and the game never reached its full potential. Nevertheless, the Florida Gators were the best college football team for one night and for all of 2008, and their success can be mostly attributed to their all-world, life-affirming, inspirational, transcendent, radiant star: the Gators defense.

In the Football Outsiders BCS Championship Preview, I noted that short and long field position drives may be the key to the game's outcome, tipping the scales in favor of Florida. I was partially right, but not for the particular reasons I had envisioned. Unlike much of their 2008 season, Florida played the entire first half against Oklahoma at a significant field position disadvantage. Disregarding a kneel-down possession from their own 3-yard line, the Gators' average starting field position on its four first-half drives was its own 12-yard line; Oklahoma began its five first-half possessions on average from its own 40-yard line. That field position advantage and extra possession should be worth an extra touchdown according to national efficiency averages (6.53 points to be exact), but the explosive Oklahoma offense only managed a 7-7 tie at halftime.

Florida thwarted the highest-scoring offense in college football history on their shortest fields of the night, an area the Gators have excelled at protecting all season long. On 32 opponent possessions begun 60 or fewer yards from the goal line, Florida gave up only four touchdowns, forced 11 punts, collected three interceptions and turned the opponent over on downs three times. (The much-revered USC defense gave up seven touchdowns on 22 such drives in 2008). In the championship, in fact, Oklahoma came away with zero points on two golden opportunities following egregious Tim Tebow first-half interceptions. Tebow led the late game-clinching fourth-quarter drives with precision passing and strong running, but the defense's ability to protect short fields after his first half miscues put him in position to be a hero in the end.

Oklahoma's offensive frustrations were also tied to the flow (or lack thereof) of the game. Injury timeouts, officiating delays, and even a bizarre two-timeout-then-punt sequence all contributed to the game's stunted rhythm. Florida's ball-control had something to do with it as well, limiting the Sooners to only ten total drives in the game, two fewer than any other Oklahoma game this season and well below their average pace. There were fewer total possessions in the BCS Championship than in any other bowl game in 2008, but it didn't faze the Gators. Florida was victorious in all four games it played this season in which they possessed the ball ten times or fewer.

Great defense not only won Florida its championship, but it prevailed over offense more often than not this season. Eight games were contested in 2008 between FEI top-10 offenses and defenses, and the top defenses won six of those showdowns, hold the offenses under 30 points five times and under 20 points three times.

Top-10 Defense versus Top-10 Offense in 2008

Date

Top-10 Defense

Top-10 Offense

Game Winner

Sept. 20

Texas (No. 9 ADE)

Rice (No. 10 AOE)

Texas (52-10)

Sept. 27

TCU (No. 8 ADE)

Oklahoma (No. 1 AOE)

Oklahoma (35-10)

Oct. 11

Texas (No. 9 ADE)

Oklahoma (No. 1 AOE)

Texas (45-35)

Oct. 25

Texas (No. 9 ADE)

Oklahoma State (No. 7 AOE)

Texas (28-24)

Nov. 1

Texas (No. 9 ADE)

Texas Tech (No. 3 AOE)

Texas Tech (39-33)

Nov. 1

Florida (No. 1 ADE)

Georgia (No. 8 AOE)

Florida (49-10)

Jan. 1

USC (No. 5 ADE)

Penn State (No. 5 AOE)

USC (38-24)

Jan. 8

Florida (No. 1 ADE)

Oklahoma (No. 1 AOE)

Florida (24-14)

Several top-10 FEI defenses populated the ACC, a conference that befuddled FEI all season long and throughout bowl season. The league exceeded national expectations in the postseason (7-3 against the spread in bowls), but did little to boost its actual credibiity (4-6 straight-up). An FEI offseason project is required to fully investigate a love affair of a particular conference, but the simple explanation is that as developed, FEI rewards tightly contested wins and losses. Five of the conference's six bowl losses were by a touchdown or less, just like virtually every league game in the regular season. North Carolina tallied four losses on the year by a combined nine points, played 11 of 12 games against FEI top-50 teams, and stomped No. 14 Georgia Tech, No. 20 Rutgers, and No. 26 Connecticut. Is the Tarheels' profile disproportionately boosted by its early-season domination of teams that turned their season around? FEI doesn't factor in when the games were played, perhaps to a fault. But since many interconference games are played early in the year, is there a sound, viable alternative?

The other major storyline of 2008 was the Utah Utes, a team that has received well-deserved attention and recognition for its undefeated season and dismantling of Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The win boosted their FEI rating as much as any team in the final standings, but they still don't move into the conversation of elite teams according to this system. This system, like any computer ranking system, is cold and calculating. But that doesn't make it necessarily any more "right" about Utah or the other top teams in 2008 than any other individual's opinion. A human opinion (mine) created the algorithm that produced the FEI rating, and the ratings for Utah, North Carolina, and even Florida are simply observations of data processed by the algorithm.

Updated FEI Top 25 Non-BCS Conference Teams 2003-2008

Year

Team

Year Rank

Record

FEI

2004

Utah

5

12-0

0.243

2006

BYU

12

11-2

0.206

2006

Boise State

16

12-0

0.198

2008

Utah

12

12-0

0.182

2007

BYU

14

10-2

0.177

2003

Miami(OH)

12

13-1

0.176

2005

TCU

20

11-1

0.167

2003

Utah

15

10-2

0.162

2004

Boise State

21

11-1

0.155

2008

TCU

22

10-2

0.150

2008

Boise State

23

11-1

0.143

2004

Fresno State

25

8-3

0.128

Does a formula, any formula, reveal something about the teams that we might not observe as fans of the game? I created FEI not as mathematician seeking a thesis subject, but as a fan looking for a more objective and true evaluation of data fromt the game I love. As a fan of college football, I saw an ultra-motivated Utah team in the Sugar Bowl that would give fits to any team in college football this year, including the Gators, Trojans, and Longhorns. As an analyst, I'm trying to reach more tangible conclusions about not just that particular game, but every game played by Utah and the other 119 FBS teams in 2008. As I illustrated with "The Cloud" in the final pre-bowl FEI ratings column, college football teams are perhaps not best categorized linearly, despite our inclinations as analysts, writers, and fans to rank them that way. We want to argue over "Who's Number One?," even when, or especially when, the answer is complicated. And so before we rev up next year's debate over "Who's Number One?," Football Outsiders will continue to develop new statistical strategies to best answer that question. See you next season.

I disagree. This is exactly the type of process Bill James was describing when he wrote about how the BCS is constantly tweaked in order to more reflect the human polls.

Tweak the FEI ratings to better approximate the strength of teams but don't do it so that it better matches up with human opinion (in the sense of AP polls and the like). If a computer system is perfectly refined to the point that it reflects the opinions of human observers, then what is the point in having that computer system in place?

I'm absolutely not talking about tweaking to match the polls. I'm referring to tweaking to reflect reality. I only watched the first half of the Bama Utah game because it really wasn't much of a game, as Utah was clearly better than Alabama. Yet the final results have Utah four places behind Alabama. And based on reality, Penn State and the rest of the Big Ten teams seem too high as a result of the teams being outclassed.

I am absolutely in love with a model that does a good job of measuring a team's success rather than, say, ranking Notre Dame high because they are historically a good team. But a good model should be predictive, and based on the final results I would wager against predictions that this model implies.

Its easy to rank any system. Track its record of wins and losses. Maybe do something like take it each teams best win and worse loss and then compute the wins and losses. For the most part they should match up with what the system said. If not then its time to tweak. My personal opinion(not that it matters) is that the system would do better to tweak the ade.